"Dad" forced to pay child support.

[photon]

Originally Posted by valo403

My point is that this legislation both the public health by requiring people who want to engage in artificial insemination to do so via proper medical channels while at the same time holding those who choose not to responsible. Allowing people to craft there only laws in this area through contract accomplishes neither of those goals.

Didn't claim otherwise, never said they should be able to craft their own laws or not be held responsible for being ignorant of the law when they made their agreement.

Originally Posted by valo403

And it's completely relevant to paternity, which is in turn relevant to the financial obligation. If you want to avoid paternity simply follow the proper procedures, don't go off on some goof ball adventure in insemination.

They aren't necessarily relevant to each other, they only are in this case because the law is as you say doing double duty. If the question of parentage wasn't part of the law (i.e. if there was no requirement to go through a clinic or a doctor and a contract was sufficient to remove the parental obligations and rights) they could still have the provision in the law for the public health interest. Just trying to stay focused on the paternity and obligation issue.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

I presume even then, the court could still over-ride such a contract, if it is in the "best interests of the child". No legal right is superior to that.

This argument is also a fallacy in the context you present it.

"The best interest of the child" is evidently served by having someone pay support. Whether that is the donor or the state is immaterial to that mandate.

This isn't about the best interest of the child at this point. This is about the state vs. the donor. The state doesn't want to pay, so is trying to pass the buck, so to speak.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

This argument is also a fallacy in the context you present it.

"The best interest of the child" is evidently served by having someone pay support. Whether that is the donor or the state is immaterial to that mandate.

This isn't about the best interest of the child at this point. This is about the state vs. the donor. The state doesn't want to pay, so is trying to pass the buck, so to speak.

What I am getting at in the post you quoted, is the court could over-ride an otherwise proper contract in certain circumstances. Imagine a case where the mother was not receiving welfare from the state. The court might be prepared to quash such a contract, allowing a claim for support.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

What I am getting at in the post you quoted, is the court could over-ride an otherwise proper contract in certain circumstances. Imagine a case where the mother was not receiving welfare from the state. The court might be prepared to quash such a contract, allowing a claim for support.

Certainly. OTOH, the court could rule that the law itself is improper, enforce the contract and force the state to pay. But neither scenario has much to do with the best interests of the child, IMNSHO.

When you speak of the best interests of the child in these contexts, you are referring to parent B supporting parent A in funding the child's needs. And if one or both parents is unable, the state often steps in with welfare and other forms of support. The parents (mom 1 and mom 2) of this child should fairly expect the state to honour this covenant the same as if the situation was a normal mom and dad. Instead, Kansas is going after a third party on a technicality. In this case, the state is acting for itself, not the child, and is proposing to financially cripple an innocent man in the process.

That, at least, is the moral argument from my view. The legal argument will likely wind through the courts, with said victim being financially crippled regardless of outcome.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Certainly. OTOH, the court could rule that the law itself is improper, enforce the contract and force the state to pay. But neither scenario has much to do with the best interests of the child, IMNSHO.

When you speak of the best interests of the child in these contexts, you are referring to parent B supporting parent A in funding the child's needs. And if one or both parents is unable, the state often steps in with welfare and other forms of support. The parents (mom 1 and mom 2) of this child should fairly expect the state to honour this covenant the same as if the situation was a normal mom and dad. Instead, Kansas is going after a third party on a technicality. In this case, the state is acting for itself, not the child, and is proposing to financially cripple an innocent man in the process.

That, at least, is the moral argument from my view. The legal argument will likely wind through the courts, with said victim being financially crippled regardless of outcome.

What makes him innocent? His involvement in some hair brained scheme exposed him to liability, he wasn't held down and forced to jizz in a jar.

And there should be no expectation that the state would honor a contract that is a blatant attempt to circumvent the law. That is simply not a reasonable stance for anyone to take.

As for the best interests of the child vs. the best interests of the State, this serves both. The best interests of the child are obviously served where they are able to live a life with the financial means to access a basic level of care. The best interests of the State are served by requiring the people responsible for bringing a child into the world to provide those means.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If the only change we make in this situation is subsitution of a male for female in the partnership, it would appear the male in the relationship is free and clear.

He is not bound by sperm to the child.

No. Paternity/Maternity is not the only thing considered. Like I said, step-parents can be made responsible in certain cases.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

No. Paternity/Maternity is not the only thing considered. Like I said, step-parents can be made responsible in certain cases.

To be clear it is not my intention to be thick (I just am).

So if the fact picture is the same, with the exception of the parents being a M/F (not a F/F) then it is possible the courts would link the male parent to the child, and not the sperm donor?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

To be clear it is not my intention to be thick (I just am).

So if the fact picture is the same, with the exception of the parents being a M/F (not a F/F) then it is possible the courts would link the male parent to the child, and not the sperm donor?

AFAIK The donor is probably always going to be able to be held responsible, assuming that the law isn't overturned his paternity is established. However, that doesn't mean that a step-parent, even a same sex step-parent, couldn't also be held responsible in certain cases.

And no worries about being thick, I've had concussions too

[Rathji]

There are cases where the court has ruled that the step parent pay child support after a divorce.
The existence of these cases is really the only thing that makes this one odd, since he obviously is liable otherwise.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

To be clear it is not my intention to be thick (I just am).

So if the fact picture is the same, with the exception of the parents being a M/F (not a F/F) then it is possible the courts would link the male parent to the child, and not the sperm donor?

If I read the case right, I think it would still apply. Either one of the couples suddenly can't work, the remaining one doesn't make enough to support the family, and the court chases the surrogate donor for child support. Doesn't matter that it's a F/F couple.

[GGG]

The requirement to use a clinic really is discriminatory against poor people and those in non typical situations (F/F). The reason this is likely done is either they couldn't afford to go to a clinic or a clinic refused to do it because they were a lesbian couple. So in this way the current law is very unfair.

Intent is what should matter overall, it was the intent of the couple that the donor wasn't to have any liability and no one is disputing that. That should matter. For people who can't concieve and need to use these services cases like this make it more difficult to find doners, surrogetes, etc.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GGG

The requirement to use a clinic really is discriminatory against poor people and those in non typical situations (F/F). The reason this is likely done is either they couldn't afford to go to a clinic or a clinic refused to do it because they were a lesbian couple. So in this way the current law is very unfair.

Intent is what should matter overall, it was the intent of the couple that the donor wasn't to have any liability and no one is disputing that. That should matter. For people who can't concieve and need to use these services cases like this make it more difficult to find doners, surrogetes, etc.

Is there any evidence of a clinic refusing them, or anyone else, on the basis of sexual orientation? If so that's the lawsuit that should have been filed.

As for financial means, while it is somewhat arbitrary in that sense I don't see any possible way a case can be made based upon that. There's no obligation for the state to provide access to a completely elective procedure such as this, and there is a strong public health basis for encouraging people to use approved means of having these procedures done. There are plenty of things that are too expensive for some people, that doesn't make them discriminatory. There are also plenty of laws that punish people who are too poor to comply with them, vehicle registration being a prime example.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by valo403

Is there any evidence of a clinic refusing them, or anyone else, on the basis of sexual orientation? If so that's the lawsuit that should have been filed.

As for financial means, while it is somewhat arbitrary in that sense I don't see any possible way a case can be made based upon that. There's no obligation for the state to provide access to a completely elective procedure such as this, and there is a strong public health basis for encouraging people to use approved means of having these procedures done. There are plenty of things that are too expensive for some people, that doesn't make them discriminatory. There are also plenty of laws that punish people who are too poor to comply with them, vehicle registration being a prime example.

I agree with you on what the law states. But I strongly disagree that the law is just. This guy is getting screwed over because he gave a gift of a child to another couple. No one is disputing the facts in the case but this guy gets screwed over. It is clear the intent of all parties was to have him give up his paternity but because the state doesn't want to support the kid they want a 3rd party to.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with you on what the law states. But I strongly disagree that the law is just. This guy is getting screwed over because he gave a gift of a child to another couple. No one is disputing the facts in the case but this guy gets screwed over. It is clear the intent of all parties was to have him give up his paternity but because the state doesn't want to support the kid they want a 3rd party to.

I don't care how you get your sperm into a woman it is always your kid.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I don't care how you get your sperm into a woman it is always your kid.

Does your statement include or exclude anonymous donor clinics?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Does your statement include or exclude anonymous donor clinics?

for me personally it includes which is why I would never have a child with some complete stranger/s then not give a dam whether my kid was well looked after or being diddled beaten or generally abused.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with you on what the law states. But I strongly disagree that the law is just. This guy is getting screwed over because he gave a gift of a child to another couple. No one is disputing the facts in the case but this guy gets screwed over. It is clear the intent of all parties was to have him give up his paternity but because the state doesn't want to support the kid they want a 3rd party to.

I completely disagree. This guy isn't getting screwed over any more than anyone else who decides that they have the ability to do what they choose without any consideration for the law. You cannot contract around law, we both know that, but somehow this guy figured he could.

And the state is in the right to not support this child when there is a person out there who should be. Why should the state as a collective pay for a child that this goofball brought into the world via this ridiculous scheme?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by valo403

I completely disagree. This guy isn't getting screwed over any more than anyone else who decides that they have the ability to do what they choose without any consideration for the law. You cannot contract around law, we both know that, but somehow this guy figured he could.

And the state is in the right to not support this child when there is a person out there who should be. Why should the state as a collective pay for a child that this goofball brought into the world via this ridiculous scheme?

The state should pay for the child because the state accepts that sperm donors can absolve themselves are parentage. The only difference is who put the sperm in. The person who puts the sperm in should not determine who the parents of the child are.

And is there any evidence the couple or donor were aware of the applicalble law? If so, and they knowingly flaunted it I might agree with you but if they were unaware of the law then I think they took reasosnable steps to ensure that their intent was clearly comnunicated.

A hypthetical: If the couple were still together and the donor decided he wanted joint custody of the child do you feel he is entitled to it because he is a biological parent even though he attempted to absolve himself of custody?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GGG

The state should pay for the child because the state accepts that sperm donors can absolve themselves are parentage. The only difference is who put the sperm in. The person who puts the sperm in should not determine who the parents of the child are.

And is there any evidence the couple or donor were aware of the applicalble law? If so, and they knowingly flaunted it I might agree with you but if they were unaware of the law then I think they took reasosnable steps to ensure that their intent was clearly comnunicated.

A hypthetical: If the couple were still together and the donor decided he wanted joint custody of the child do you feel he is entitled to it because he is a biological parent even though he attempted to absolve himself of custody?

A) The state has good reasons for encouraging that donors and the donation procedure are carried out by doctors, not homemade insemination clinics. The first, and most obvious, is the public health factor. I don't think there's any possible way to argue against that. The second, is the certainty it provides. As others have pointed out in this thread, a contrary standard opens the door to abuse via false claims. This standard make sit very clear who and who isn't eligible for paternity.

B) Ignorance of the law is no excuse, again this is something you know well. These people had the capacity to construct this contract, they also had the capacity to find out if it was legal.

C) No, he is not entitled. Paternity does not grant you a inalienable right to custody (I don't know Kansas law, but I don't know of anywhere where that is the case). He'd have the right to petition for it, and the court would have the right to look at the circumstances and make a decision.

[photon]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I don't care how you get your sperm into a woman it is always your kid.

What if I grab a skin cell that just fell off of you and use that DNA to fertilize an egg and implant it in a woman?